Lord Triesman: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr Kim Howells) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Further to my Written Ministerial Statement of 13 July, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) announced on 2 September its estimate that opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan had risen to a record high of 165,000 hectares, up 59 per cent from 104,000 hectares in 2005. On 12 September in Brussels, UNODC released a summary report with a breakdown of cultivation levels by province. UNODC will publish its full annual opium survey for Afghanistan at the end of October. Although anticipated, the scale of the increase in opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan is very disappointing. Ninety-two per cent of the 61,000 hectare increase is due to a substantial rise in cultivation in Helmand and three other southern provinces; 70% of the increase is in Helmand alone. This reflects the very difficult security situation and limited law enforcement capability there.
	Cultivation varies considerably across the country—both between and within provinces. Three of the four highest poppy cultivating provinces in 2005 are down this year. In Nangarhar cultivation remains at negligible levels across most of the province, which in 2004 was second only to Helmand. Where access to governance, security and development have improved, reductions achieved last year have been sustained, and in some cases, cultivation has fallen further.
	Having just returned from Afghanistan, I am convinced that the Afghan Government's national drug control strategy is the right one. Only by tackling the traffickers who profit from the trade, building strong and effective institutions, strengthening and diversifying legal rural livelihoods and dealing with the drug addiction that is taking hold within Afghanistan itself, can we hope to address the problem. President Karzai and his Government are committed to tackling the trade and will take action against the corruption that threatens to undermine these efforts. At the secondNational Counter-Narcotics Conference on 22 August, President Karzai noted that poppy cultivation and the drugs trade was Afghanistan's greatest enemy and that Afghanistan had no option but to eliminate poppy. As partner nation for counter-narcotics, the UK remains determined to work with President Karzai's Government to bring about a sustained reduction in the production of opium and heroin and rid Afghanistan of the scourge of the drugs trade.

Lord Drayson: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Des Browne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement:
	Both the International Security Assistance Force, and coalition forces in Afghanistan, are experiencing a surge in their requirement for Air Support. To help meet that need, I have decided temporarily to deploy a seventh Harrier GR7a aircraft and a small number of additional personnel to Kandahar airfield. As with any operational commitment, the duration of this deployment will be kept under constant review.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Pensions Reform (James Purnell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	After completing a detailed commercial and tendering exercise, I wish to announce that Haden Building Management are to be awarded a seven-year contract for the delivery of a suite of office services to the Department for Work and Pensions.
	In January 2005, following a wide-ranging review of support services, senior officials in my department, with the support of Ministers, concluded that bids for the future provision of all our office support services should be invited from specialist external suppliers in the private sector. Inviting bids for a single national contract for the supply of office services from the private sector would allow us to harness the benefits afforded by new technology, organisational efficiencies and the agility to respond to our changing needs as the department is modernised and reformed.
	These office support services, which include post opening and despatch, messengerial work, switchboard operations, typing and secretarial services, are currently delivered through a range of external suppliers and in-house teams as well as forming part of the tasks of staff who serve the public directly. These arrangements have served us well in the past but the review concluded that these methods of delivery no longer provided best value for money and that, in their current state, would not provide the best service in the future.
	Since the review, officials have been undertaking a competitive tendering exercise, in accordance with EU procurement rules, to select a supplier who can provide the services we require and offer best value for money. Following a rigorous evaluation of bids, the contract has been awarded to Haden Building Management with the new supply arrangements expected to commence on 1 March 2007.
	This decision will mean that some jobs currently undertaken by DWP staff and our existing external providers will transfer to the new supplier. In total around 700 DWP staff nationally may transfer. Greatest numbers of DWP staff affected are based in Scotland, Wales and north-west England with other smaller groups in London and the north-east. We recognise that some staff may not wish to transfer and for these we will, where possible, offer the opportunity to redeploy within DWP or other government departments although we cannot guarantee this. Given the general unavailability of suitable alternative posts, however, the likelihood is that many staff engaged in support services will transfer to the new contractor under the protection of TUPE.
	Proposals put forward by Haden provide more efficient ways of working and take account of the departmental modernisation programme. This is likely to result in a reduction of staff required to deliver office service contract arrangements over a period of time.
	Officials have been meeting with trade unions and keeping staff affected by these changes informed of progress on an ongoing basis. Over the coming months they will continue to consult with trade unions and work with managers and HR advisors on all matters relating to the transfer of staff.
	I will keep Members with significant numbers of affected constituents updated on our progress over the next few months. I am confident that these plans, for the future delivery of office services, will help support our overall goal of moving to a leaner and fitter organisation delivering world-class services to our customers.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My honourable Friend the Economic Secretary (Mr Ed Balls) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Concerns have been expressed to the Government about the effects of a possible takeover of the LSE by a company based outside the UK on the LSE's rules, in particular the rules applying to those companies whose securities are traded on the LSE's markets. This is a concern that the Government share. In this statement I set out our approach.
	The Government are neutral as to the nationality of the owners of Recognised Bodies (RBs)1. Of the current RBs, five are subsidiaries of overseas-based companies. Openness to overseas investment has been an important part of the success of the City in recent years and will continue to be in the future.
	The Government would also not seek to intervene in the independent judgments of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the competition authorities in respect of any changes of ownership of RBs. The FSA and the competition authorities have specific tasks to perform on an independent basis within clear legislative frameworks set out by Parliament. Independence and indifference to nationality are key elements of the UK's regulatory regime.
	Investors, issuers of securities, and members of RBs all have an interest in RBs having rules which strike a balance appropriate to that body between the benefits of the restrictions, particularly in terms of investor protection and the impacts on issuers, members and other stakeholders. Such a balance is vital to ensuring exchanges play their role in creating deep and liquid capital markets which promote economic growth. In this respect, the Government believe it is essential that changes of ownership of RBs should not put at risk the achievement of such a balance by RBs.
	Our current regulatory regime for RBs is based on high-level legislative principles supplemented by FSA guidance. Within this framework, RBs have the freedom to develop their own rule books in consultation with their members.
	I have discussed these issues widely in recent months and made clear that I would expect any potential new owners of the LSE to want to provide certainty and reassurance to the exchange's stakeholders. I welcome the statement which the US Securities and Exchange Commission issued on 16 June. This provided a helpful clarification of how the SEC sees the current position in respect of the scope of US securities laws.
	However, as the FSA pointed out in its statement of 12 June, there is a degree of uncertainty about how overseas ownership of the LSE would affect its regulatory regime. It depends on exactly how any owner would attempt to integrate the LSE with its existing business and the legal framework in other countries, both of which can be subject to change.
	It is important that there is certainty that the rules of RBs in the UK will continue to be proportionate, balancing the benefits of restrictions with the impacts on stakeholders.
	The Government will now legislate to enhance the FSA's powers in this area. This will confer power on the FSA to veto changes to the rules of an RB in defined circumstances. The aim would be to enable the FSA to stop RBs making rule changes whose effects on issuers and others were likely to be disproportionate to the public benefits. The Government will provide further details in due course.
	The purpose of such a change to legislation is not to involve the FSA in the day-to-day commercial judgments of the RBs. The power will be a right of veto and not a right of approval of rule changes. It will provide a back stop to ensure that the RB's stakeholders can be certain about the proportionality of the rules of the RB going forward.
	This new provision will ensure that UK RBsremain open to overseas ownership. It makes the permissible outer limits of the RB's rules blind to the nationality of their ownership by entrenching better regulation principles in respect of those rules.
	It should also be clear that we will not allow this legislation to be evaded through abuse of our Recognised Overseas Investment Exchange and Clearing House regimes.
	1 Under Section 18 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 there are seven recognized investment exchanges (the London Stock Exchange, London International Financial Futures Exchange, EDX London, Virt-X, ICE Futures, the London Metal Exchange and NYMEX Europe) and two recognized clearing houses (CREST and LCH.Clearnet Ltd).

Baroness Andrews: My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government have decided to terminate their agreement with Scout Solutions Projects Limited to deliver mobility services for social tenants.
	The new services to be provided under the contract were a new website providing access to existing schemes such as LAWN and Seaside and Country Homes, and a link to the Jobcentre Plus Internet Job Bank. The cost for the development of the new software and IT infrastructure was £1.2 million and the department has paid £1.06 million to date.
	The department has decided to terminate this agreement in the interests of the public and the taxpayer because of serious concerns about the performance and fitness for purpose of the software developed by SSPL to provide those services. The software was delivered by the contractor in final form more than a year behind schedule; and independent final testing which replicated SSPL's own test criteria discovered an unacceptable level of faults. Departmental officials worked with the company throughout the contract to address shortcomings, but came to the conclusion that this strong course of action wasthe only one available. This decision was communicated to SSPL on 20 July 2006. The department will be seeking to recoup the £1.06 million spent on the development of the new software as well as the associated costs.
	Scout Solutions Projects Limited has also been providing existing mobility services alongside the development of the new services. They will continue to be paid to provide these services under the terms of the contract for a transitional period. The funding for these existing services which were delivered has been £9.7 million. Mobility services are important to tenants, and the department will be seeking to put alternative provision in place building on the success of choice-based letting schemes.
	Throughout this period, social housing applicants and tenants have continued to use direct methods to move within social housing. For example, in 2004/05 alone, over 15,500 LA tenants completed mutual exchanges.
	The matter is now the subject of discussions between DCLG and the contractor.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My honourable Friend the Economic Secretary (Mr Ed Balls) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Treasury is today laying before Parliament the secondary legislation to introduce FSA regulation of activities relating to these products. Copies will be available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House, and will be accessible on the Treasury website (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk).

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made the following statement.
	I have approved support of £252 million over five years for the second phase of the Government of India's nationwide Reproductive and Child Health Programme. DfID will disburse £10 million in financial assistance plus a further £700,000 in technical assistance in 2006-07. Thereafter, annual disbursements will be subject to satisfactory reports on progress.
	This programme will support the Government of India in tackling India's huge burden of maternal and infant mortality. One-fifth (136,000) of all maternal deaths in the world, and one-quarter (1.8 million) of all infant deaths occur in India. Globally we will not reach the millennium development goals to reduce these deaths unless we succeed in India. The Reproductive and Child Health Programme is the Indian Government's single biggest response to meet this challenge. The programme aims to reduce the maternal mortality ratio from 407/100,000 live births in 1998 to 100/100,000 in 2015, and the infant mortality rate from 70/1,000 live births in 1998 to 30/1,000 in 2015. If the programme achieves all its targets, over 1 million lives will be saved each year.
	The programme will introduce new measures to tackle concerns about procurement irregularities in the first phase of the Reproductive and Child Health Programme, which was not funded by DfID. An action plan will help to strengthen competitive tendering procedures and increase transparency for the purchasing of drugs and equipment, and new standards will be introduced to improve the quality of products. Until these measures take effect, all procurement contracts over $200,000 will be handled by international agents.
	The total cost of this second phase of the Reproductive and Child Health Programme is around £5 billion, which the Indian central and state Governments will meet the bulk of. External aid will be around 15 per cent of the overall budget, with the single largest contribution coming from DfID. Our aid is being fully co-ordinated with other development partners, including the World Bank.
	The Reproductive and Child Health Programme is universal in coverage, and it will provide care through pregnancy, childbirth and childhood. But resources will be targeted on India's poorest states, including Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, and Madhya Pradesh and will especially target women and children among the poorest and most marginalised families, in scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.
	DfID's financial support will be used for upgrading maternity facilities; increasing skilled attendance at birth; the purchase of essential drugs, equipment, supplies and contraceptives; staff training; communications; the piloting of new ideas; and assessing the impact of the programme. DfID technical assistance will finance a national health systems resource centre, which will provide overall technical assistance to the programme at central and state level, and strengthen health sector procurement.
	This second phase of the programme is ambitious and will require a huge expansion in the delivery of public sector health services to tackle some of the country's biggest health problems. It also includes a number of additional accountability and financial management safeguards to strengthen the Government's anti-corruption systems. The programme will be monitored closely by the Indian Government and development partners, through reviews every six months. A copy of the project memorandum for the DfID contribution has been deposited in the Library of the House.

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made the following statement.
	The recent conflict in Lebanon caused great harm to the civilian populations in both Israel and Lebanon. A million people, a quarter of Lebanon's population, were displaced by the fighting and in Israel 300,000 people were reported to have fled their homes or taken to shelters. Israel had every right to defend itself against Hezbollah, but from the beginning we expressed the need for a proportionate response. I believe that this requires all sides to respect international humanitarian law.
	The ceasefire, reached after much diplomatic activity, including strenuous efforts by the British Government, is holding and has aided the relief effort but the humanitarian situation in Lebanon remains serious.
	On 15 August, the day after the ceasefire came into effect, I visited Beirut to assess the situation for myself. The priorities for the humanitarian aid effort were to secure sustained access for humanitarian convoys to reach the most vulnerable; to ensure safe return for displaced citizens; to minimise the risk of injury and death from unexploded munitions for those returning and for aid workers; and to repair basic infrastructure, such as water and power supplies and bridges.
	From early in the conflict, the UK responded to Lebanon's call for help. Our total funding commitment now stands at £22.3 million, including our share of multilateral spending, making us one of the biggest bilateral contributors to the humanitarian effort. In line with our assessment of current priorities, this money is helping to provide shelter, healthcare, water and sanitation, and to clear unexploded munitions. We have agreed to provide urgently needed prefabricated bridges to open critical humanitarian supply routes. The first three bridges arrived in Lebanon on 1 September.
	The Government have also urged Israel to lift all restrictions on normal shipping entering Lebanese ports, as set out in Resolution 1701. This is essential in order to help restore the economy. The partial lifting of the economic blockade last week has further enhanced the chances of avoiding a much bigger humanitarian crisis and will help Lebanon begin the path to recovery. We continue to push for further progress on the issue.
	The international community has responded generously to Prime Minister Siniora's appeal for assistance at the Stockhom conference on early recovery held on 31 August. Collectively we have pledged over $900 million to aid recovery. It will be important that these pledges are acted on as soon as possible.
	Lebanon needed our aid, and we are ready to do more as needed, but more than anything else what Lebanon and the region need is peace. The conflict of this summer was a symptom of a wider collective failure to resolve the conflict that has affected the Middle East for decades. UNSCR 1701 was a step in the right direction, and must be implemented by all parties, but we need to encourage negotiation, compromise and above all political leadership to end the long-term suffering of people on both sides of the border.
	Unfortunately, what has happened in Lebanon is not the only humanitarian crisis in the region. We cannot forget the plight of the Palestinians, especially in Gaza, where violence continues and people die. Since the start of the current conflict on 28 June, over 200 Palestinians have been killed and over 700 injured. The cost of damage to agriculture and industry is now estimated at around $46 million. Many households continue to receive only six to eight hours of electricity per day. However, there are plans to rebuild the Gaza power station and to supply electricity from Egypt, which should improve the situation. Intermittent electricity supply is affecting all key services. Water supply and sanitation services remain limited, with severe health implications. The UN now estimates a 65 per cent increase in the number of children with diarrhoea compared with this time last year. Hospitals are struggling to operate vital equipment and to store drugs and vaccines safely.
	Food prices are rising and 70 per cent of Gazans are now considered to be food insecure. The World Food Programme reports a 72 per cent increase in numbers using their feeding programme. Gaza crossing points are open intermittently, primarily for humanitarian food supplies. Action is needed to ensure unrestricted humanitarian access, including the supply of medical equipment, fuel, food and electricity.
	At the Stockholm donor conference on 1 September, donors pledged $500 million for the occupied Palestinian territories, of which $200 million was for humanitarian aid. The UK pledged £3 million to the temporary international mechanism (TIM) for operation, maintenance and repair work to keep water, sanitation and electricity services running. This follows an earlier contribution to the TIM of £3 million to fund essential health supplies. In addition, the UK made a contribution of £15 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in April. UNRWA provides healthcare and other basic services for Palestinian refugees, who comprise 70 per cent of Gaza's population. The UK has also deployed two experts to the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs to improve its capacity to monitor the humanitarian situation in Gaza. These two experts will assist donors and others to make sure help gets to those who need it the most.

Lord Warner: My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Andy Burnham) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The department has consulted on proposed changes to the process for the selection of topics for the work programme of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).
	55 responses were received from a wide variety of organisations, including patient and professional groups, healthcare professionals, industry and the NHS. An analysis of the responses has been undertaken and we have reached the following decisions:
	the administration of the early stages of the topic selection process will be the responsibility of NICE. Responsibility for the administration of the later stages of the process will remain with the department;the criteria used in the selection of topics will be revised, with a single set of criteria used for the selection of both clinical and public health topics; there will be wider and better representation of the NHS and public health throughout the process, to help ensure that the topics being proposed represent the needs of professionals and their patients. This representation will be secured via the new panels which will replace the Advisory Committee on Topic Selection (ACTS); andfinally the timelines for the selection of topics will be reduced. This will mean that clinical topics which are a priority issue for the NHS will be referred to NICE sooner.
	Full details of the consultation responses and the analysis of the comments has been placed in the Library and is available on the department's website at http://www.dh.gov.uk/Consultations/ResponsesToConsultations/ResponsesToConsultationsDocumentSummary/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4139043&amp;chk=5Sr3mH
	A new programme of work is being established by NICE to help the NHS identify and stop ineffective interventions. This will potentially allow the NHS to reinvest millions of pounds on drugs and other treatments that improve patient care.
	The three products that NICE will be developing are:
	commissioning guides: these will help NHS commissioners to make the case for moving to concordance with NICE guidance and shift resources away from ineffective care;recommendation reminders: these will highlight recommendations from published NICE guidance which reduce ineffective practice; andspecific guidance aimed at reducing ineffective practice: this guidance will use existing methodologies to give advice on the use of technologies or approaches to care currently employed by the NHS where evidence of effectiveness that exists suggests that it is a poor use of resources.
	NICE expects to issue the first commissioning guides and recommendation reminders in autumn 2006 and the first guidance on ineffective treatments in 2007.

Lord Warner: My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Andy Burnham) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The arrangements under part IX of the drug tariff have not been reviewed for over 20 years and there were clear indications that neither the NHS nor the taxpayer were receiving value for money.
	We have therefore been consulting with the market over potential price cuts since October 2005.
	In reviewing part IX, the Government's objectives have been to:
	maintain, and where applicable improve, the current quality of care to patients;secure value for money for the NHS;ensure equitable payment for equivalent services and transparent reimbursement pricing;work in partnership to deliver fair prices for the NHS and reasonable returns for suppliers and contractors;facilitate the introduction of innovative solutions;maintain local choice in the provision of services; andkeep administration arrangements to the necessary minimum.
	We have consulted extensively with industry on these issues. Following consultation on dressings and chemical reagents, we have decided to implement a staged price reduction of up to 15 per cent to the April 2006 drug tariff reimbursement prices for some blood glucose detection strips. Initially, reimbursement prices will be reduced by 12 per cent on all affected products from 1 October 2006. This may be followed by a further reimbursement price reduction of 3 per cent from 1 November 2006. We hope that the 3 per cent variant will allow the market to maintain the free provision of related services, including the supply of educational material, helplines and metres. Responses to the consultation indicated that a price reduction of 15 per cent may mean that it would be difficult to maintain these services. We have written to companies to inform them of the price changes.
	A consultation on stoma and incontinence appliances has closed today and further consultation with industry will be held.

Lord Warner: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Public Health (Caroline Flint) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government have set public service agreement targets to address geographical inequalities in life expectancy, cancer, heart disease, stroke and related diseases. The targets aim to see faster progress compared to the average in the "fifth of areas with the worst health and deprivation indicators". Achievement of the targets will be assessed on the outcomes for this group in 2010. The local authorities and primary care trusts which make these areas are the Health Inequalities Spearhead Group.
	The Spearhead group is defined on local authority data and consists of 70 local authorities that are then mapped on to primary care trust boundaries.
	Revised primary care trusts boundaries were announced on 19 May. Following the reconfiguration, the Spearhead group list has been refreshed to take account of the new primary care trust boundaries. The list of 70 Spearhead group local authorities (that has not changed) and the revised list 62 primary care trusts that map to them is as follows:
	
		
			 Local Authorities in the Spearhead Group Primary Care Trusts in the Spearhead Group 
			 Barking and DagenhamBarnsleyBarrow-in-FurnessBirminghamBlackburn with DarwenBlackpoolBlyth ValleyBolsoverBoltonBradfordBurnleyBuryCarlisleChester-le-StreetCorbyCoventryDerwentsideDoncasterEasingtonGatesheadGreenwichHackneyHaltonHammersmith and FulhamHaringeyHartlepoolHyndburnIslingtonKingston upon Hull, City ofKnowsleyLambethLeicesterLewishamLincolnLiverpoolManchesterMiddlesbroughNewcastle upon TyneNewhamNorth East LincolnshireNorth TynesideNottinghamNuneaton and BedworthOldhamPendlePrestonRedcar and ClevelandRochdaleRossendaleRotherhamSalfordSandwellSedgefieldSouth TynesideSouthwarkSt. HelensStockton-on-TeesStoke-on-TrentSunderlandTamesideTamworthTower HamletsWakefieldWalsallWansbeckWarringtonWear ValleyWiganWirralWolverhampton Ashton, Leigh and Wigan PCTBarking & Dagenham PCTBarnsley PCTBirmingham East & North PCTBlackburn with Darwen PCTBlackpool PCTBolton PCTBradford PCTBury PCTCentral Lancashire PCTCity and Hackney PCTCounty Durham PCTCoventry PCTCumbria PCTDerbyshire County PCTDoncaster PCTEast Lancashire PCTGateshead PCTGreenwich PCTHalton & St Helens PCTHammersmith & Fulham PCTHaringey PCTHartlepool PCTHeart of Birmingham PCTHull Teaching PCTIslington PCTKnowsley PCTLambeth PCTLeicester City PCTLewisham PCTLincolnshire PCTLiverpool PCTManchester PCTMiddlesbrough PCTNewcastle PCTNewham PCTNorth East Lincolnshire PCTNorth Tyneside PCTNorthamptonshire County PCTNorthumberland Care TrustNottingham PCTOldham PCTRedcar & Cleveland PCTRochdale PCTRotherham PCTSalford PCTSandwell PCTSouth Birmingham PCTSouth Tyneside PCTSouthwark PCTStaffordshire County PCTStockton-on-Tees Teaching PCTStoke on Trent PCTSunderland PCTTameside & Glossop PCTTower Hamlets PCTWakefield PCTWalsall PCTWarrington PCTWarwickshire PCTWirral PCTWolverhampton PCT

Lord Warner: My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Andy Burnham) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	A 10-year contract has been awarded to DHL to manage the supply chain and procurement services currently managed by the logistics division of the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) and part of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (PASA).
	The effective date of the contract will be 1 October 2006 and the new service will be known as NHS Supply Chain. DHL will operate NHS Supply Chain as agent of the NHSBSA, which will be responsible for managing the contract on behalf of the department and of the NHS.
	DHL will manage the procurement and supply chain services of approximately £3.7 billion of NHS non-pay spend and forecasts savings greater than£l billion for the NHS front line.
	In addition, the partnership with DHL will:
	secure continuity of the services for at least 10 years;ensure all trusts will benefit from lower prices;secure the vast majority of the 1,650 jobs that are being transferred;protect staffs terms and conditions under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE);create up to 1,000 new jobs to support expansion over the 10 years;guarantee that all the logistics distribution centres will remain open for five years at the very least; andrequire the construction of a new distribution centre in the Midlands within 18 months.
	We recognise that NHS trusts value the NHS logistics service and we have ensured that DHL will, at a minimum, maintain the current service. As is the case now, NHS trusts will not be mandated to use the outsourced service. For DHL to be successful they will have to demonstrate value for money to NHS trusts. They will also work very closely with clinicians to source the right products at the best prices from suppliers.
	This is also an opportunity for suppliers with innovative products to gain better access to the NHS. DHL will purchase products on behalf of the NHSBSA in accordance with EU procurement regulations thus ensuring open and fair competition.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in the Cabinet Office is pleased to announce that the 2006 version of the Public Bodies Directory has now been completed and copies of the directory are available in the Library for the reference of noble Lords. The directory provides information on individual public bodies as at31 March 2006. The directory is also accessible at: http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/other/agencies/public_bodies/index.asp. This shows that at 31 March 2006 there was a reduction of 28 long-term public bodies since the same date in 2005.
	The directory lists the public bodies sponsored by central Government, with contact details, information about their remit and about the membership of their boards. It also introduces a new category within the public bodies classifications—public broadcasting authorities. This recognises the unique governance arrangements pertaining to the BBC and S4C, which set them apart from other non-departmental bodies and public corporations.
	The board membership figures are broken down between male and female members for individual bodies, and summaries are provided at departmental level for the proportions of board members who are women, have declared they have a disability or come from a minority ethnic background. There have been small increases in all categories. As at 31 March 2006, 35.5 per cent of appointments made were women (up 0.5 per cent on the position at 31 March 2005), 5.9 per cent were members of ethnic minority groups (up 0.4 per cent) and 5.1 per cent were to those declaring a disability (up 0.8 per cent).
	A cross-Government summary of individual departments' figures will be placed on the public appointments website at: www.publicappointments.gov.uk. This reinforces the Government's commitment to continue to pursue their diversity objectives and to promote outreach activity and plans.
	The directory also includes information about the Government's task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews, giving a more complete picture of the bodies and groups working to deliver the Government's objectives.

Lord Drayson: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Des Browne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement:
	The defence industrial strategy published in December 2005 set out a challenge to the UK maritime industry to reduce its overheads and invest in the facilities and skills needed to meet the demands of the Royal Navy's future warship programme. The same challenges apply to the naval bases as we look to the future. The naval bases exist to support the Royal Navy's front line. They are complex and expensive organisations. We need to ensure that their capacity is no more and no less than we need to support the needs of the fleet now and in the years to come. I wish to announce therefore our intention to conduct an in-depth review of naval base infrastructure requirements. The aim of the review is to ensure that we have the right naval base infrastructure to meet the needs of the future fleet. The review will assess future requirements and examine a range of options, including some that could lead to radical reductions in overheads and naval base capacity. The recommendations from the review, which will be undertaken by the Defence Logistics Organisation, are expected to be finalised in spring 2007.
	The trade unions have been consulted on the terms of reference for the review and, while it is too early to predict the impact on jobs, the department will continue to engage with them and other stakeholders as the review is taken forward. Final decisions on the recommendations from the review will be subject to full trade union consultation.

Lord Triesman: Sudan remains a top priority for the UK Government. The Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are jointly supporting parties in Sudan to deliver the Darfur peace agreement (DPA) signed on 5 May, and to promote development in Sudan. The UK played a leading role in securing UN Security Council Resolution 1706, which was passed on 31 August. This resolution expands the mandate of the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) to Darfur in support of the early and effective implementation of the Darfur peace agreement and the N'djamena agreement, and strengthens the military personnel and civilian component of UNMIS to do this.
	The passage of resolution 1706 demonstrates the international community's continued commitment to peace in Darfur. In the interests of the safety and welfare of its civilians, we continue to press the Sudanese Government, at the highest level, to give consent to its implementation. We are concerting with others in the international community, including the UN, US and key Arab states, to achieve this. I raised this with Egyptian President Mubarak and the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, in Cairo last week. And both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development and my noble friend the Minister for Africa, Lord Triesman, have been engaging key interlocutors in the Government of Sudan and beyond.
	In the mean time we will continue to support the African Union's efforts while a transition is under way. The African Union is doing an important job in the most difficult of circumstances and it is most important that they stay until a UN force is able to deploy. On 18 July, the international community in Brussels promised further support of around $200 million, including the £20 million that the UK is providing this year.
	The continuing violence in Darfur is having devastating effects. It must stop immediately. We condemn the continuing violations of the ceasefire by all parties, particularly the violence directed at civilians and attacks on humanitarian agencies. Because of this insecurity the UN and NGOs are unable to reach 470,000 people whom they believe to be in need of their assistance.
	We are also gravely concerned by the recent military build-up in Darfur and reports of Sudanese Government military attacks as part of their "stabilisation plan for Darfur". As the UN Secretary-General has said, this plan is inconsistent with the DPA. Any attempt to take renewed military action and any continued rebel activity would further undermine the prospects of achieving peace and could lead to a further humanitarian catastrophe.
	A broad based and inclusive implementation of the DPA, signed in Abuja on 5 May 2006, remains the basis for stability, peace and reconciliation in Darfur. The UK played a leading role in negotiations in Abuja: the Secretary of State for International Development attended the final days of negotiations in support of the AU mediation to help secure a deal. All parties should work to put its provisions into effect. More rapid progress by the Government of Sudan in disarming the Janjaweed is key. It is also important for the signatories to the DPA to work to bring the non-signatories on board. To this end, the efforts of the SPLM are most welcome.
	In the mean time, the non-signatories need to be fully involved in the effective monitoring of the ceasefire and investigation of violations through existing ceasefire mechanisms. In this way, they should be fully held to account for fulfilling their obligations as set out in the 2004 N'djamena Agreement on Humanitarian Ceasefire on the Conflict in Darfur.
	The UK remains committed to peace in Darfur and the wider Sudan. We will continue to seek a solution to the conflict there. As part of this, we have appointed a new special representative for Darfur, William Patey, a former ambassador in Khartoum, to replace Rod Pullen, who has retired from the Diplomatic Service.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I would like to update the House on the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) negotiations on the Doha development agenda. On July 24, Pascal Lamy, the Director General of the WTO announced that he was recommending the suspension of the negotiations across all subjects, after talks between the US, EU, Brazil, India, Australia and Japan broke down on the key issues of agricultural domestic support, agricultural market access and non-agricultural market access. He said the suspension would give all WTO members time to reflect, to examine available options and to review their positions. His recommendation was accepted at a WTO General Council meeting on 27 July.
	The UK Government are very disappointed that insufficient progress has been made in the negotiations to allow the conclusion of the Doha round this year. While it is very disappointing that no agreement has yet been reached, it is premature to say that the Doha round has collapsed and cannot be revived. We believe that all key players have a responsibility to use the suspension of the negotiations to reflect on their positions with a view to showing flexibility in future that will allow an agreement to be reached. Developing countries, including the poorest countries, are the biggest losers from the failure to reach agreement.
	The UK remains committed to achieving an ambitious, pro-development outcome to these negotiations. Our priority now is to encourage all WTO members to re-engage in the negotiations as soon as possible. The UK Government have taken and will continue to take every opportunity to press for this—within the EU and with other WTO members. The UK Government will also continue to press for progress on Aid for Trade for developing countries. Building developing countries' capacity to trade is important in helping them to integrate into the global economy and for providing a route out of poverty and we do not believe that Aid for Trade should be conditional on the successful conclusion of the DDA.
	The UK will continue to support a multilateral, rules-based, international trading system. We believe multilateralism is the best way of tackling unfair trade practices.

Lord Rooker: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Paul Goggins) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I have today laid before this House a copy of the Oversight Commissioner's second statutory report for the year 2006, which was published on 28 September, in accordance with Section 68(4)(a) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
	This is the eighth report compiled by Al Hutchinson as Oversight Commissioner and the 17th in the series of oversight reports published since 2001. This is a thematic report concentrating on devolution in policing.

Baroness Amos: In 1996, the independent Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) recommended that parliamentary pay, allowances and pensions should be reviewed every three years starting in 2000. In line with this recommendation, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written to John Baker, the chairman of the review body, in the following terms:
	Terms of the review
	"I understand that the Senior Salaries Review Body is ready to undertake the triennial review of parliamentary pay and allowances.
	You will be aware of recent statements by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on public sector pay restraint and the underlying rate of inflation. I am sure that the review body will wish to take account of this important context in its deliberations.
	I am writing to confirm that the Government would like to see the following areas covered in your report:
	(a) the salaries of Members of the House of Commons taking into account the benefits of the parliamentary pension scheme;
	(b) the salaries of Ministers and other office holders, including those with additional responsibilities in Parliament, and the operation of severance pay;
	(c) aspects of the benefits and funding of the parliamentary contributory pension fund;
	(d) an appropriate approach to the annual increase to parliamentary salaries between triennial reviews to replace the current automatic link to the senior civil service given the changing recruitment and retention strategy for senior staff;
	(e) the rate of allowances for Members of the House of Commons, including eligibility for the additional costs allowance and the London supplement, and the operation of the resettlement grant in the light of forthcoming age discrimination legislation;
	(f) the rate of peers' expenses allowances; and
	(g) the extension to unmarried partners of eligibility to spouses' travel costs, and to cover travel to devolved assemblies for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs.
	I should also be grateful for your recommendations on the adequacy of the current provision of IT equipment for Members both in the House of Commons and in their constituencies.
	I look forward to receiving your recommendations next year."
	The review will also take into account the recent appointment of the Lords Speaker.
	Consultation with Members of both Houses
	Members of both Houses should already have received a letter from John Baker, inviting the submission of written evidence by 8 December 2006, either by e-mail to alan.dawson@dti.gsi.gov.uk, or by post to:
	Alan Dawson
	Senior Salaries Review Body
	The Office of Manpower Economics
	6th Floor
	Kingsgate House
	66-74 Victoria Street
	London SW1E 6SW